Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Screening for cancer: evaluating the evidence.

T J Gates1

  • 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, Lancaster General Hospital, Pennsylvania 17604, USA. tjgates@LHA.org

American Family Physician
|March 29, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Palinopsia: a review of the literature.

Behavioural neurology·2014
Same author

Cancer screening in perspective.

American family physician·2001
Same author

Association of attending physician specialty with the cesarean delivery rate in the same patient population.

Family medicine·2000
Same author

Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a family practice perspective.

American family physician·1997
Same author

Physician-assisted suicide.

The New England journal of medicine·1997
Same author

My first cricothyrotomy.

The Journal of family practice·1996

Evaluating cancer screening tests requires considering biases like lead time and length, which can overestimate benefits. The number of patients needed to screen (NNS) quantifies true benefit, with proven interventions ranging from 500 to 1,100.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Preventive Medicine
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Patient expectations drive demand for cancer screening tests.
  • Overestimation of screening benefits can occur due to lead time, length, and screening biases.
  • Current screening recommendations for major cancers face ongoing debate.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate cancer screening procedures.
  • To highlight biases that can inflate perceived screening benefits.
  • To emphasize the importance of robust trial data for assessing screening efficacy.

Main Methods:

  • Discussion of biases affecting screening test evaluation (lead time, length, screening biases).
  • Emphasis on prospective, randomized controlled trials as the gold standard.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilizing the 'number of patients needed to screen' (NNS) metric to quantify benefit.

    • Main Results:

    • Biases can lead to an overestimation of screening test benefits.
    • Prospective, randomized controlled trials are essential for demonstrating reduced morbidity and mortality.
    • The NNS metric provides a clearer understanding of screening intervention effectiveness, typically ranging from 500 to 1,100.

    Conclusions:

    • Physicians must account for biases when interpreting screening test results.
    • Randomized controlled trials remain the definitive method for validating cancer screening efficacy.
    • The NNS metric offers a more accurate representation of the real-world benefits of cancer screening interventions.